There is a saying, that started with the betrayal of Andreas and continued with the stupidity of Roger, that says:
"All your heroes are compromised."
And it never fails. Sooner or later they reveal themselves.
Now nostr:nprofile1qqsgydql3q4ka27d9wnlrmus4tvkrnc8ftc4h8h5fgyln54gl0a7dgspp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdu0k0t75 is pushing BIP-177 to change satoshis to bitcoin.
Are these people crazy?!
Turning 21 million bitcoin into 2.1 quadrillion “bitcoins” isn’t just bad branding—it completely nukes the most important meme in Bitcoin’s history.
This isn’t just a bad idea.
It’s a recipe for confusion, dilution, and long-term cultural fragmentation.
We’ve spent 15 years building absolute clarity around one of the strongest memes in monetary history:
21 million Bitcoin. 100 million satoshis each.
Simple. Elegant. Untouchable.
And now, right on the edge of global adoption—now—they want to rewrite the script?
This doesn’t feel like UX optimization.
It feels like a narrative hijack.
A subtle takeover—not of the protocol, but of how people think about Bitcoin.
And that’s just as powerful.
Maybe I’m paranoid.
But changing the unit, the name, and the supply right before mass onboarding doesn’t just feel tone-deaf—it feels strategic.
Like rewriting the map while millions are just beginning to find their way.
I’ve never heard anything more short-sighted, more dangerous, or more fundamentally disconnected from what makes Bitcoin work.
It’s not a UI bug.
It’s a memetic monument.
You don’t demolish it for clicks, smooth UX, or vanity campaigns.
You protect it—because mass adoption is coming.
And what people adopt must be the truth, not a convenient lie wrapped in “accessibility.”
Discussion
Sad but true. Andreas? What story is that?
Andras Antonopolus, the most famous influencer until 2015, when he became an ethereum shitcoiner.
Are you referring that Andreas isn't 100% bitcoin and gives some credit to other blockchain based applications for their potential non-monetary usefulness?
Yes.
Their non-monetary usefulness is an excuse for becoming a paria. All smart contracts are monetary.
Not talking about Ethereum or any other crypto in specific but I do think the blockchain tech might have other usefulness - like making voting records public behind a cryptographic wall, for example - this would help make voting transparent and verifiable. When it comes to money, yeah only-bitcoin and nothing else.
You really can't make voting records transparent if you control all the voting process, including the issuance of the voting permit itself. Look at what happened in Venezuela.
For me, in general smart contracts are fool contracts. In the moment you introduce an admin or oracle, they are as corruptible as any other human contract.
Of course, no system is perfect. But ones are better than others. I would rather try figuring out how to use cryptography, private/public key, and auditable blockchain tech to try and make voting as privately as possible for the individual but as public as possible for the result verifications. I think the best shot at that is something pertaining to blockchains rather than keeping with the old system which is highly corruptible.